Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection

Stoo said:
The Epic Stunt Spectacular should be in a Paramount park...
I admit it was puzzling for me at first as well, but artists and finance have always had an uneasy alliance.

Stoo said:
...feel that the artistic integrity of "Raiders" is being forsaken by associating Indy with Disney.
It has, and this is how I feel when I see the Young Indy pocket knife with the logo emblazoned on it. Nothing against making product available, but it's just as preposterous as Indiana Jones tampons. Slap that label on it!

If it were on the packaging fine, but give us a replica of a knife he had/would have had. A pocket knife with the logo on it is embarrassing to me.

Just like the stunt spectacular and the Indiana Jones lightsaber duel with Darth Vader. Stupid content for stupid people. Unimaginative. Indugent and sophmoric. Hey you asked where it will end: it won't.

Stoo said:
I also have a strong aversion to the fact that somewhere down the road, some kids too young to know better (or an alien), whose first exposure to Indy is via a Disney attraction, might believe that Indiana Jones is a Disney product.
Look no further than this board. I guess it's what they do with it once they've been exposed.

Stoo said:
Child: mommy daddy, da indi ride wuz reely good. can we watch an indi moovie on da disnee channel?
Mom: No, my little munchkin, we can't. Sorry, dear.
Dad: Sorry, son, but we can watch them on DVD! Ready to see a man getting his heart ripped out and another one getting shot in the head?:gun:
Wow, this is taking me back to one of those Indy/role model threads...:hat:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
I'm well aware about the money-making a$pect of the whole affair (see: post #28) but feel that the artistic integrity of "Raiders" is being forsaken by associating Indy with Disney. I also have a strong aversion to the fact that somewhere down the road, some kids too young to know better (or an alien), whose first exposure to Indy is via a Disney attraction, might believe that Indiana Jones is a Disney product.:eek:

The essay I quoted above is a great read, if I say so myself. Many aspects of it nibble at the edges of this thread. The violence and politics of early Disney films, with which Indy may share more than he does with later Disney incarnations. Not only was he initially set against the politics of those days, but the pulp genre that shapes his world mimics Benjamin's 1936 analysis of 'Mickey Mouse': the medium of cartoon reconfiguring our world, so that nature on film is 'second nature', unlike the 'unmediated nature' that we witness with our own eyes.

The essay paraphrases Benjamin's theory: "Adventurous travellers are offered a multitude of trips through widely strewn ruins in a world turned anti-physical...Cartooning takes such anti-physics for granted...an anti-naturalist, utopian rebuttal of physical laws and ‘natural’ constraint."

That could well be the operating manual for Indiana Jones. From a 1936 analysis of Mickey Mouse films to an adventure set in the same year, in which physics (and luck) follows the laws of Mickey Mouse, rather than the laws of Newton.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Stoo said:
Guys, the Epic Stunt Spectacular is the only Indy attraction in a "Hollywood Studios" park. The other 3 (and the "Star Tours" rides) are within the MAGIC KINGDOM, The Holy Ground! That's the difference.:)

The Magic Kingdom is an inferior park located within the confines of Disney World. Disneyland is Disneyland. The Magic Kingdom it is not. I'll have more to write later in the morning.




I make the jungle tremble.
 
Regarding Pirates of the Caribbean:
Attila the Professor said:
As a currently active franchise? Undoubtedly. (Of course, let's not forget the controversy the ride itself caused in the 90s.)
The controversy?:confused:

Montana Smith said:
I know. I just wanted to read your reaction! ;)
I like you.:hat:

Montana Smith said:
The essay I quoted above is a great read, if I say so myself.
It is...
 

Junior Jones

New member
This is a very interesting topic, as I'm Disney fan as well as an Indy fan.

I admit to being a little unsettled at the incongruity of Star Wars and Indiana Jones at Disneyland, but since it's been almost twenty years I've gotten used to it. (It helps that I'm a fan of both).

To be honest, it seemed a little awkward when Disney brought in the Muppets during their stumbled attempt to acquire Jim Henson. Since then they've acquired the Muppets (obviously without Jim Henson) and I'm gradually getting used to it.

When Disney bought Pixar it was a little easier to swallow. Although they were different studios it always felt (to me) that they belonged together.

Disney's acquisition of Marvel is also taking some getting used to. So far they're still very separate entities due to pre-existing film distribution and theme park licensing agreements, but over time I'm sure that will get more and more awkward before it starts to feel right.

But even without these outside aquisitions, "Disney" comprises an immense range of diverse properties. To be honest, even home-grown Disney is very disparate. How is it that Goofy, Davy Crockett, Ariel, Jack Sparrow, and Hannah Montana can co-exist? Is it just because we're used to it? Eventually we'll get used to Kermit and Spider-Man being part of the group.

That being said however, there is one disparity that's specific to Star Tours and Indiana Jones. Disney hasn't "acquired" LucasFilm (yet).

Phil
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Regarding Pirates of the Caribbean:The controversy?:confused:

The hue & cry from a certain segment of society in the nineties led to Pirates of the Caribbean being labeled "sexist."

Why?

The wench auction to start. Per this group, the world's youth were being told that it's okay to sell women into bondage. Perhaps more galling was the fact that after the pirates had sacked the town, a group of pirates were after treasure of a fairer kind.

One drunken pirate was holding a woman’s undergarment as she hid in a barrel, and mutters, "she was a feisty one, she was.” Others were engaged in a "maiden chase" intent on committing mayhem and even more nefarious deeds.

This couldn't stand! And so Pirates of the Caribbean is now an equal opportunity offender with scenes like this

piratechase.jpg


Other pirates are chasing food, being chased by stout broom wielding women, and (I believe) the drunken pirate with the pigs is gone too.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Not to spin the thread off on a tanget

...but I thought that that the uproar was not the misogyny inherent in the ride, but the fact that they were all Stepford wives, essentially.

2862319730_222aeb4da6.jpg


_____________
EDIT

...for the record, I suspect that Stoo seems to be postulating the question: Does Disney MAGIC equal Lucas MAGIC...at the very heart**. I hope so, that's a worth discourse.

Initially as noted above I seemed to think yes, but as I read up this weekend on Walt himself, and what his philosophy regarding family entertainment, I might have to share Stoo's quandary. I'm still putting together quite a bit of info for all to digest, but I need Stoo to weigh in and report. Is the asterisked part above, your true position?
 
Last edited:

Le Saboteur

Active member
Pale Horse said:
...but I thought that that the uproar was not the misogyny inherent in the ride, but the fact that they were all Stepford wives, essentially.

My conscious knowledge of Disneyland only extends back about 17~ years. Though, I would posit that any Stepford Wife-like concerns are easily filed under the misogyny aspect of the ride. A cowed and beaten people are typically docile.

The oft-maligned Redhead is the only one who seems to exhibit any real vitality, almost welcoming the plundering & pillaging. Next time you're on the ride, take a good look at the portrait in the bar area across the from the Captain's Quarters. Let me know who you believe it resembles.


Pale Horse said:
Initially as noted above I seemed to think yes, but as I read up this weekend on Walt himself, and what his philosophy regarding family entertainment...

Books upon books have been written about Uncle Walt's philosophy, so I will definitely be interested in reading what you come up with. Without going into too much detail, I have always operated under the impression that it was that a family could enjoy the same ride/attraction/feature at the same time. Disney's best features do this (Beauty & The Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc.). Mom & Dad would pick up on jokes/themes that the children wouldn't. Part of Stoo's conceit seems to be that family units end once the child reaches around...oh, eight.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
still on that sideline..

it's a trick question. :p
Le Saboteur said:
Next time you're on the ride, take a good look at the portrait in the bar area across the from the Captain's Quarters. Let me know who you believe it resembles...

It's called A Portrait of Things to Come by the ever talented Marc Davis --- and a replica is in the Horse house...
 

kongisking

Active member
Stoo said:
Yee-haw! I'm not alone. High 5, Kong!(y)

High five back, although the rest of my post clearly states that I've gotten over Disney having an Indy ride. Now, as for them owning Marvel, that will take centuries to get over... :sick:
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Stoo said:
I've only been to Walt Disney World in Orlando (1978 & 1982) and DisneyParis (April 2008) so I trust you on the present demographics of the Anaheim park.

I've been to Walt Disney World ('82), but don't count it. My contemporary experiences, however, involve Disneyland (many, many times), Disneyland Resort Paris ('00, '05, '08), and Tokyo Disneyland ('07 & '08). While largely the same, cultural differences rear their heads, and distinguish each park.

For example, Tokyo Disney fans don't relate to the Disney Corpus. Sure, many of them have seen the movies, especially the Pixar ones, but that's not the go to reason for its appeal. To the Japanese, Disney is high-end imported luxury brand. Part of this is why you'll find items & characters there that you don't find anywhere else. (See Duffy the Bear.) Families attend, like at all Disney Parks, but the majority of visitors are Japanese youth.


Stoo said:
However, when I was at the Paris park in '08, it was overwhelmingly FAMILIES of TOURISTS. Children were everywhere and barely any French could be heard amongst them. (One can only guess what the Tokyo demographics are.)

Of course it was. April equals the beginning of the high season in not only Disneyland, but France. Go there in January or February when its full of French families and young French servicemen willing to brave the cold. Based on the number of times I was offered to swap ca$h for their "discount" coupons, it seems like DLRP marketing offers substantial discounts to locals during this time period.

Stoo said:
Sabby-baby, I disagree with your 20+ years comment. The last Young Indy TV movie aired in '96 and the "Complete Adventures of Indiana Jones" was released on VHS a couple of years after that. Not exactly "willfully ignored" for the past 20+ years.;)

Did it? I missed them. In fact, I didn't even know I had missed episodes until the recent dvd release came out. But while the edutainment of Young Indy is beyond compare, it doesn't compare to a theatrical release. The eight years between Crusade and the Millennium would have been a perfect to put out one, two more movies and been completely done with the series.

Didn't those last movies air on ABC Family? Guess who owns ABC/ABC Family? Oh, snap! Indy is in the Disney family. In all seriousness though, Disney didn't create the series, but they did allot it air time.

You know more about that than I do so I'll give a humble bow...but maintain that "Pirates" is Disney property. Indy isn't.:p Plus, the Indy attractions started to appear, like, 2 decades before the "Pirates" films even began. Oh, my goodness...

Stoo said:
Temple du Péril is a shameless PROSTITUTION of the Indiana Jones name. Apart from the coaster being similar to the mine carts in "Doom" there is NOTHING else related to Indy. As far as I can recall, there isn't even a fedora in the set-ups for the waiting line.

You won't get an argument here. I will say that Temple du Peril is relic of the Pressler/Harris era of Disneyland Theme Park management. Go over here and ask about it if you want to see some serious flesh and garment rending; the likes of which would put their kin here to shame.

A quick bit of history.

The Pressler/Harris era of management put the emphasis on marketing and profits above all else. So much so that maintenance at the parks was routinely ignored or put off. Light bulbs remained burned out, the Mark Twain Steamboat often had bare wood exposed, and any new rides were designed on the cheap. Often no better than what you would find at a traveling carnival.

It's also when Disney rightly or wrongly expanded into Europe. At the time, Euro Disney didn't have much of a draw even if you get past the protests, resignations, and the lack of such e-ticket rides as Space Mountain. It was opened on the cheap, and (in my opinion) there was probably legitimate discussion given to the idea of shuttering the park. So why invest a huge sum of money into something they may have to shutdown?

Getting back to Temple of the Forbidden Eye, it was originally 1/3 of a proposed "Lost Expedition" addition to Adventureland based around the exploits of Indiana Jones. In addition to the jeep based temple scrum most of us know and love, it was supposed to include a mine car chase lifted right out of Temple of Doom, and the Jungle Cruise would be worked in on the periphery. The Disneyland Railroad would also pass through allowing passengers a glimpse into the fiery hell.

Check out The Never Land Files for some of the awesome concept art. Scroll to the bottom of the page.

Temple of the Forbidden Eye is purported to have cost a cool $100-million. Not chump change. You could probably add another $100-to-200-million for the Jungle Cruise refurb, new railroad trestle, and mine car chase. Disney would have broken the bank; and when Scrooge McDuck is in charge of the purse, fat chance of getting that kind of funding. Especially when Splash Mountain was competing for time and attention with the brass.

So what does this have to do with the travesty that is Temple du Peril? After the project was quashed at Disneyland, there was talk of moving forward with it at Euro Disney. It failed to materialize given the early problems with the park -- again, the cost and lack of attendance killed it -- and the Europeans have had to suffer through a sub-par ride ever since.

Rumors that John Lasseter is reviewing the original plan for future viability have had Disney Geeks -- and should have Indy Fans -- salivating for a couple of years now. Given the hu-uge amount of space around Disneyland Paris, I wouldn't doubt that it gets built there first.

See this article for an explanation of how it was all supposed to come together.

Stoo said:
"What's more Adventureland than Indiana Jones", you ask? SINDBAD! (For those not in the know, it is spelled that way.)...and he doesn't require a license!(y)

SINBAD! could work, but Dreamworks beat Disney to the movie version. (Unless, of course, you meant the Sinbad who appeared in First Kid!)

However, SINBAD! is known for his voyages. Given the current setup of a Southeast Asian rain forest, he would be out of place. In fact, I would go so far as to say he would dilute the spirit of Adventureland and in turn, SINBAD! would be diluted. No, best to leave him in Tokyo.

Speaking of which, Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Crystal Skull, is not in Tokyo Disneyland; it's in Tokyo DisneySea, their second gate. The entire realm is based on exploration, and both Indy and SINBAD! belong there.

It should also be mentioned that Disney Imagineering had been working on the "Lost Expedition" concept since the early eighties, well before Eisner was brought on board to helm the company. It took a decade just to get Temple of the Forbidden Eye up and running.

Stoo said:
P.S. Le Saboteur, I forgot to mention that you're one of the Disney freak crew I mentioned before!:p

:hat: There's a lot more to say, but this is already long enough. Both Indiana Jones Adventures are solidly PG-rides. They're not the non-entity you find in France.



Pale Horse said:
...but the fact that they were all Stepford wives, essentially.

Zing! Right over my head on the initial read!

Is this where we tell Stoo that they have an entire land dedicated to Jules Verne in Tokyo?
 

mattzilla2010

New member
I know I'm probably in a VERY small minority on this, but in response to what was (I think) the original question about Indy not belonging with something so family-friendly as Disney... I was brought up on both at the same time.

I was born after all three Indy films had been released, and only three years before Temple of the Forbidden Eye opened at Disneyland. In fact, my first visit to Disneyland was when that particular ride had just opened (I was too small to go on it). But I'd say I had been seeing animated Disney films since I was 2 and probably saw Raiders for the first time when I was 3 or 4. Obviously way too young to be seeing guys shot in the head and run over by trucks, etc. but it happened anyway. :p

I guess my point is that both Disney and Indy were always considered equally family-friendly in my household. As I said, I grew up with both and love the fact that there's an Indy ride at Disneyland. That and Star Tours make the park a much more complete reminder of my childhood. It's always made sense to me, but I've never known a Disneyland without those things. At the same time, I never thought that Star Wars or Indy were Disney properties. Even as a little kid, I knew they weren't "Disney" like the Fantasyland rides were.

Besides, without the Lucasfilm-Disney deal, we never would have HAD the awesomeness that is Temple of the Forbidden Eye! I highly doubt Paramount would have plunked down $100 mil for it to be in one of their parks... they would never spend that much on a theme park ride.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
mattzilla2010 said:
I know I'm probably in a VERY small minority on this, but in response to what was (I think) the original question about Indy not belonging with something so family-friendly as Disney...

The prime question is really whether or not Disney stands for anything more than a money making venture, with an ambition for global monopoly?

What is Disney? Does it have some moral outlook? It has a wide and varied output that often defies branding.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
The prime question is really whether or not Disney stands for anything more than a money making venture, with an ambition for global monopoly?

Disney...as a corporation? Or Disney, as it pertains to the ideals and philosophy of Walt himself. Undoubtedly if he and his nephew were still alive the shape of the park, and the empire might be different.


Stoo's initial musings suggest more how Indy's concept is discongruent with Disney's (the man's) concept. I wish he would chime in and clarify... :whip:

(in the spirit of good fun discourse, of course)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
Disney...as a corporation? Or Disney, as it pertains to the ideals and philosophy of Walt himself. Undoubtedly if he and his nephew were still alive the shape of the park, and the empire might be different.

The signs may have read: "Welcome to Disney World. Strength through Joy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Pale Horse said:
Stoo's initial musings suggest more how Indy's concept is discongruent with Disney's (the man's) concept. I wish he would chime in and clarify... :whip:

(in the spirit of good fun discourse, of course)

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1623/was-walt-disney-a-fascist

Modern Disney is squid-like, with it's suckers on all manner of things. Early Disney may well have been "discongruent" with Indy's concept, since Indy hated Nazis, and films like Fantasia mimic the the rallies and regimentation of extreme ideology (and Indy hates Commies too). Though this may only be a chicken and egg situation.

I just found this as a jumping off point:

A Staff Report from the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

Was Walt Disney a fascist?

April 12, 2005

Dear Straight Dope:

I've heard rumors on and off for years about Walt Disney. I've heard suggestions that he was a fascist, a communist, a racist and an antisemite. The first two are of course contradictory. Web searches didn't help to straighten out anything in my mind. Was he a political nut? Did he hate blacks and Jews? Or are these typical malicious lies we like to tell about great men so we don't have to feel so unaccomplished?

— Joseph Kenner, North Hollywood, CA


Hold it there, hoss. That's a lot of accusations for one letter. Let's try to break it down a bit and see if we can sort some things out here.

One of the more curious charges against Disney was that he was a secret Nazi. A few white supremacist groups still cherish this notion. Their best evidence is a misreading of the short film "Der Fuehrer's Face" (1943), in which Donald is seen in a Nazi uniform, swastikas and all. In the end we find out it's all a nightmare, but that doesn't dissuade the racists. A lesser-known short sometimes cited is 1932's "The Wayward Canary," in which Mickey is seen using a cigarette lighter with a swastika painted on the side.

This is all circumstantial at best, but other suggestive details have come to light. In 1933, the German American Bund was founded by Fritz Kuhn. Kuhn was evidently quite a character--he had met Hitler in the early thirties and reportedly was profoundly loathed by the Nazi leader. An association of German immigrants to America, the Bund had a definite pro-Nazi slant. Disney animator Art Babbitt claimed his boss had a strong interest in, if not outright sympathy for, the Bund:

In the immediate years before we entered the War there was a small, but fiercely loyal, I suppose legal, following of the Nazi party . . . There were open meetings, anybody could attend and I wanted to see what was going on myself. On more than one occasion I observed Walt Disney and [Disney's lawyer] Gunther Lessing there, along with a lot of prominent Nazi-afflicted Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time.

The German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, whose documentaries in the mid-30s had helped to glorify the Nazis, claimed that "after Kristallnacht [1938], she approached every studio in Hollywood looking for work. No studio head would even screen her movies except Walt Disney. He told her he admired her work but if it became known that he was considering hiring her, it would damage his reputation."

For the most part Disney doesn't appear to have had strong political views--his politics seemed to turn on whatever it took to keep his studio going. It's likely his interest in the German American Bund sprang from a desire to forge relationships with Germany for possible film distribution there. On the other hand, there was a lot of antisemitic feeling in the Disney studio. While no one can specifically attribute bias to Disney himself, Jewish people were ready fodder for the animators' gags and Disney approved every scene in every short the studio made. In one scene in the original version of "The Three Little Pigs," the Big Bad Wolf comes to the door dressed as a stereotypical Jewish peddler. Disney changed the scene after complaints from Jewish groups. They didn't catch them all, though. In the short "The Opry House" Mickey Mouse is seen dressed and dancing as a Hasidic Jew.

Disney did have heartfelt opinions about a few things--he was virulently anti-communist and he was suspicious of unions, much like other studio heads of his day. In 1941, a strike was called against the Disney studios by animators and other artists dissatisfied that they got no onscreen credit for their work and were paid less than animators at other studios. Walt felt his company was more of a family and that the camaraderie compensated for substandard wages. He considered the strike a result of the "growing Communist conspiracy" in the United States. The dispute ended bitterly and hardened Disney's conservative and anti-communist attitudes.

Eventually he was called before the House Unamerican Activities Committee as a friendly witness, naming names of suspected communists in Hollywood. (The complete transcript of his testimony can be read at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/documents/huac/disney.html.) There is some inconclusive evidence that he might have been an FBI informant. However, this allegation comes from Marc Eliot's book Walt Disney: America's Dark Prince, which, while largely factual, does have parts that could use a good debunking. So take this with a large dose of salt.

Sources

Watts, Steven, The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life, 1997

Eliot, Marc, Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, 1993

Cohen, Karl F., Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America, 1997

Thomas, Bob, Walt Disney: An American Original, 1976

— Eutychus
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I've always held...

...that Disneyland makes the perfect socialistic model. If I were to go to school and get a doctorate, that would be my thesis.

and considering the post above, check out the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals and Walt's connections there.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
...for the record, I suspect that Stoo seems to be postulating the question: Does Disney MAGIC equal Lucas MAGIC...at the very heart**. I hope so, that's a worth discourse.

Initially as noted above I seemed to think yes, but as I read up this weekend on Walt himself, and what his philosophy regarding family entertainment, I might have to share Stoo's quandary. I'm still putting together quite a bit of info for all to digest, but I need Stoo to weigh in and report. Is the asterisked part above, your true position?
Pale Horse said:
Stoo's initial musings suggest more how Indy's concept is discongruent with Disney's (the man's) concept. I wish he would chime in and clarify...:whip:

(in the spirit of good fun discourse, of course)
So much to reply to...but I'll start with this since it's under The Flail of the Pale.;):whip:

My objections are two-fold.
1) To me, it's irritating that Disney has acquired licenses for Lucas' characters and has built attractions based upon them, in the Magic Kingdom (!), when said characters have never appeared in a Disney film, TV show or featurette. While they may "fit" the themes of Adventureland & Tomorrowland, they don't BELONG there.

2) The Disney I grew up with was about colourful cartoons, classic books & fairytales, comedic looks at the animal world, a living Volkswagen, invisibilty spray, a cat from outer space, a football-kicking mule, a golden-egg-laying duck, etc. and plunking down in front of the TV after dinner every Sunday for 1 hour's worth of wholesome entertaiment with "The Wonderful World of Disney". No film or TV episode made under the Disney banner was anything anywhere near as violent as "Raiders" or "Doom". Not even close.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
So much to reply to...but I'll start with this since it's under The Flail of the Pale.;):whip:

My objections are two-fold.
1) To me, it's irritating that Disney has acquired licenses for Lucas' characters and has built attractions based upon them, in the Magic Kingdom (!), when said characters have never appeared in a Disney film, TV show or featurette. While they may "fit" the themes of Adventureland & Tomorrowland, they don't BELONG there.

2) The Disney I grew up with was about colourful cartoons, classic books & fairytales, comedic looks at the animal world, a living Volkswagen, invisibilty spray, a cat from outer space, a football-kicking mule, a golden-egg-laying duck, etc. and plunking down in front of the TV after dinner every Sunday for 1 hour's worth of wholesome entertaiment with "The Wonderful World of Disney". No film or TV episode made under the Disney banner was anything anywhere near as violent as "Raiders" or "Doom". Not even close.

Today there are 'violent' live-action TV series and films which are produced under the Buena Vista logo. They aren't afraid of the association with more adult output.

Since Disney now has many arms, Indy happened to be snapped up and incorporated into their empire.

As if in an exchange of hostages, KOTCS is really a big nod back to those early days of living Volkwagens and cats from space. The circle is complete, and where it goes from here is into waters more treacherous than the piratic Caribbean.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Violet said:
In terms of morality, or sqeaky clean image of Disney (regardless of it's intended audience) that's more of a modern history thing as it's been pointed out already.
I emphatically and categorically disagree.
Violet said:
Would you call Fantasia moral? I watched it for the first time in a while, and couldn't believe that there were female figures in both "Night on Bald Mountain" and the Mt. Olympus segments with exposed breasts. Sure, artistic licence that may be, but I wouldn't consider "Fantasia" family entertainment necessarily. I would say a far more sophisticated audience. Even the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" segment with Mickey has a moment of violence- He kills a personified broom rather brutially.

And you don't think Satan playing with his creatures on Bald Mountain doesn't hold a candle to a heart being ripped out? Maybe it's impact is different in this day and age, but in American society back in '40, that would have been a really big and similar impact, if not more.
"Fantasia" was a bold, artisitic experiment that Walt later referred to as a "mistake". While it is now revered as a classic, it wasn't a financial success back in its day. That said, the "Night on Bald Mountain" sequence is about, what, 20 mins long? Compared with the abundant wealth of material in Disney's lexicon, it's a microscopic fraction. Mickey brutally "kills a personfied broom"?!?:eek: Violet, you're reaching like Forbidden Eye did in his 1st post of this thread.;)
Violet said:
So how does Indy not fit in your eyes? To me, he's the personification of the spirit of adventure and looking beyond Forbidden Eye, at the original Adventureland for what it was, you can see the inspirations of serials and adventure novels in it's look and design. Why not have a modern day icon that takes from the same influences?
Montana Smith said:
Today there are 'violent' live-action TV series and films which are produced under the Buena Vista logo. They aren't afraid of the association with more adult output.
This may be the case now but can you name any Disney products (made BEFORE Indy entered its realm) that have blood & gore in them?

This is all "in the spirit of good fun discourse, of course", said The Horse.;)
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I love a good challenge.

Stoo said:
This may be the case now but can you name any Disney products (made BEFORE Indy entered its realm) that have blood & gore in them?

Do you want screenshots, or just titles. :)

*Pre the late 80's yes....?
 
Top